Hi readers,
It's great to have you on the forum! If you'd like to, write something below about yourself or how you connect with the philosophy and social movement of effective altruism.
To start us off, I'm a junior doctor from Melbourne, with a particular interest in tweaking the impact of emerging technologies so they better serve humanity.
Ryan
Hello, I'm Evan.
What I'm concerned about
Global health and poverty reduction are important causes. I believe the accessible example they provide as a staple of effective altruism makes the case for it to continue being a concern for this movement. Additionally, I'm sympathetic to it because it offers a more solid, more risk-averse way of doing good, despite the fact that some may claim that it doesn't bear out as high a value from expected value calculations to other causes.
For developing countries to gain greater sovereignty/agency, to grow more economically, and to become self-sustaining seems very important. The charities that effective altruists have endorsed thus far have been doing a good job of that, but I believe even more could be done. I hope effective altruism has a future in creating such organizations, or aiding them towards greater effectiveness.
I currently believe there is some natural basis to consciousness, that it exists on a gradient, and that the sentience and capacity to feel pain and pleasure of non-human animals matters. I believe this is true for most species of vertebrates, and a few species of invertebrates. I contend it's possible that perhaps most species of invertebrates are sentient enough to warrant human concern, but I believe the jury is still out on this. To this end, I believe concern for wild-animal suffering, factory farming, and other exploitation by humans of other species is warranted.
There is a dearth of worthy research for effectiveness and impact evaluations into animal advocacy, but I would like to see this happen. To this end, I endorse the work of organizations such as Animal Charity Evaluators, Charity Science, and Farm Sanctuary.
As of this comment, I am not a vegetarian of any sort, but I do avoid eating eggs, and I heavily reduce my intake of meat. The "Logic of the Larder" argument seems plausible to me, but not sound given the current treatment of most non-human animals by us. In addition to the suffering it causes, I believe factory farming also poses risks to human public health, and to the environment. To these ends, phasing out factory farming among human civilizations is worthwhile goal.
I'm concerned for future generations, but I'm concerned because mitigating existential risk seems intractable, or at least it seems too difficult to tell (currently) about how much of an impact we would be making. Nonetheless, I believe future generations do matter, and investigations into mitigating existential risk should continue. I don't currently have a framework for discounting lives at one point in time to another.
I would like to observe among think tanks dedicated towards mitigating global catastrophic risk, e.g., the MIRI, the FHI, and the GCRI, more research dedicated to risks other than those posed by unsafe machine intelligence, in particular engineered pandemics, and other threats to global civilization. I'm aware that the capacity of these organizations to focus more effort on these other causes is contingent upon them receiving more, and greater, funding in the future, and I hope they receive it.
I believe cause prioritization may be among the most important causes to be focusing upon right now, and to this end I endorse the following projects: The Global Priorities Project (jointly operated by the Future of Humanity Institute, and the Centre for Effective Altruism), and the Open Philanthropy Project (jointly run by Givewell and Good Ventures).
At the 2014 Effective Altruism Summit, during his keynote address, Holden Karnofsky, executive director of Givewell, mentioned how he believes effective altruism has too early and broadly narrowed to a only a few cause areas. I concur effective altruism should attempt to evaluate the impact, and potential for doing good, in a wider array of cause areas. This is one of my primary concerns for cause prioritization. I believe labor mobility, open science, global catastrophic risk reduction, and other policy advocacy hold lots of promise.
Outside of earning to give, and careers typical of non-profit work, I believe more effective altruists should take it upon themselves to find more unconventionally impactful jobs and projects to work on.
Thanks for the detailed introduction Evan. Any of those bullet points would make interesting openings for discussion on an open thread (or could be elaborated into a post).